This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
InnovativeMeetings By Michelle Russell


Take Away


Feedback Mechanism


The American Society for Microbiology made numerous changes to its 2011 General Meeting—and they didn’t stop once the meeting was over.


Attendeeswhotakethetimetofilloutanannual meeting evaluation may wonder what, if any- thing, will change as a result of their responses. That’s because they are rarely informedabouthow their feedback—good andbad—will actually be taken into consideration for the next annual meet- ing. But that is exactly what the American Socie- ty for Microbiology (ASM) did, once its 111th General Meeting, asm2011, concluded in New Orleans last spring. Three months after the late-May conference,


more than 8,000 attendees—primarily scientists from 72 countries—received an email from the chair and vice chair of the General Meeting Pro- gramCommittee, letting themknowthat they had


feedback and resulting changes in strategy except through internal channels—and Connie L. Hern- don, ASM’s director of meetings and exhibits, acknowledges thatASM’s post-event transparen- cy “does not necessarily work for all meetings. I do not think a lot of people do it.” In ASM’s case, sharing positive and negative feedback with all attendees“workedfor us becausewewere rebuild- ing our [2011] meeting,” she said.“We changed everything from soup to nuts.” With such sweeping changes,ASMwas inter-


ested in learningwhether certainnewinitiatives— such as shaving a half-day from the meeting and decreasing the number of sessions in order to limit topic redundancy—were well received and


“I never thought anybody read these. Thank you for sharing.”


begun the process of planning asm2012 by review- ing the 1,400 responses they had received to asm2011’s online survey. The email wentonto say: “We were pleased to learn that many of you were appreciative ofmanynewaspects introduced at the meeting but we were also interested in the areas you highlighted for improvement.” The email identified those new aspects of the


meeting that attendees had rated highly, while giv- ing equal space to those areas they felt came up short—such as insufficient networking opportu- nities and time to view poster presentations. ASM’s follow-up email also detailed what


kinds of changes would be made to next year’s meeting format as a direct result of attendee feed- back. For example, asm2012 will have more ses- sions on areas of interest that survey respondents had felt were underrepresented at asm2011, and longer hours in the Poster Hall for presentation viewing and networking. Most associations do not share that kind of


should continue at asm2012, to be held on June 16–19 in San Francisco. Herndon was not surprised to get insightful


feedback, becauseASM’sGeneral Meeting survey response rates have traditionally been high — between 20 and 25 percent. She said:“We actual- ly do pretty good, but I think [it’s because] our attendees are pretty opinionated.” What she did not expect was such a positive reaction to the sur- vey’s follow-up email. “We got a lot of com- ments,” she said, along the lines of “‘I never thought anybody read these.Thank you for shar- ing, I seemycomments were covered in your feed- back.’ One email reply simply had ‘Nice!’ in the subject line.” The follow-up email “was a simple process,”


Herndon said, “and it just seemed like a natural progressionof allof theother changes thatwe had made to the meeting. But it was so extremely well received that we will probably make it stan- dard operating procedure from now on.” 


ON_THE_WEB: To learn more about the American Society for Microbiology, visit www.asm.org. For more on asm2012, visit http://gm.asm.org.


32 pcmaconvene January 2012 ILLUSTRATION BY MICK WIGGINS


High Marks for Trying ASM’s Connie Herndon said the one area of attendee- survey feedback that most surprised her had to do with the launch of the General Meeting’s mobile app. “It was the first time we had ever done that,” she said, “so obviously ... you are going to have some glitches when you launch any new prod- uct.” Despite those snags, attendees gave the app a thumbs-up. “The feedback that we got was interesting in that it said basically, ‘You are not quite there yet, but this was a really great addition to the meeting, and here are some suggestions of how you can improve it,’” Herndon said. “So people rated it really high, but they had lots of constructive criti- cismto give us.”


Michelle Russell is editor in chief of Convene.


Innovative Meetings is sponsored by the Irving,Texas, Convention and Visitors Bureau, www.irvingtexas.com.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110